Confererate Statues Removed in Memphis

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Statues of Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest were removed from parks in Memphis last night. This is interesting regardless of your opinion about the statues. The city sold the parks to a private organization for a measly $1000. If I was a Memphis taxpayer I would be pissed I didn't get to vote on this. The organization, Greenpeace, is probably some liberal groups using this as a way to get the statues removed. They are also cowards, moving the statues late at night. I understand that they want to move the bodies of Forrest and his wife but haven't found a way to do that yet. Confederate soldiers were long ago declared veterans and it a violation of Federal law to move their graves.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/12/21/us/ap-us-confederate-statues-tennessee-the-latest.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Faponline-news&action=click&contentCollection=news&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront

[AUDub 11,136]

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

28 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Statues of Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest were removed from parks in Memphis last night. This is interesting regardless of your opinion about the statues. The city sold the parks to a private organization for a measly $1000. If I was a Memphis taxpayer I would be pissed I didn't get to vote on this. The organization, Greenpeace, is probably some liberal groups using this as a way to get the statues removed. They are also cowards, moving the statues late at night. I understand that they want to move the bodies of Forrest and his wife but haven't found a way to do that yet. Confederate soldiers were long ago declared veterans and it a violation of Federal law to move their graves.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/12/21/us/ap-us-confederate-statues-tennessee-the-latest.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Faponline-news&action=click&contentCollection=news&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront

Greenpeace is an environmental organization.  They are pretty liberal, but have nothing to do with this.

Memphis Greenspace is wholly different.  And it's not not at all clear whether they are liberal or not.  Maybe they are just some black folks tired of seeing statues honoring people who fought for the state right to preserve slavery up in their communities.  Also, given the scene from Charlottesville, it makes perfect sense to take them down quickly and quietly during night before the Richard Spencer-incited brownshirts showed up to stir up trouble.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

25 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

 

 

I wonder now whether Memphis Greenspace would sell the parks back to the city for $1000 to complete the transaction.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

46 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I wonder now whether Memphis Greenspace would sell the parks back to the city for $1000 to complete the transaction.  

I would laugh so hard if this happened.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

10 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I would laugh so hard if this happened.

It appears they don't plan to.  They raised about $250k to purchase and provide ongoing maintenance for the two parks.  

And now the Tennessee legislature is getting involved.  They are none too happy about their nosing into the business of local cities being circumvented.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Greenpeace is an environmental organization.  They are pretty liberal, but have nothing to do with this.

Memphis Greenspace is wholly different.  And it's not not at all clear whether they are liberal or not.  Maybe they are just some black folks tired of seeing statues honoring people who fought for the state right to preserve slavery up in their communities.  Also, given the scene from Charlottesville, it makes perfect sense to take them down quickly and quietly during night before the Richard Spencer-incited brownshirts showed up to stir up trouble.

My mistake. I meant Greenpeace,. Your speculation is as good as anyone's but the whole thing just seems fishy to me.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

6 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

My mistake. I meant Greenpeace,. Your speculation is as good as anyone's but the whole thing just seems fishy to me.

True.  I think it's speculative to even assume they are liberal at all.  A lot of conservatives have no great love for these kinds of monuments on public property either.  Many good conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians feel if they are going to be displayed that it should be on private property, in museums and so on.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

If I was a Memphis taxpayer I would be pissed I didn't get to vote on this.

Agreed. I'm a US taxpayer and I'm super pissed that I didn't get to vote against shrinking our National Parks. I mean, I totally know that's not how these things work at all, but it still pisses me off. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Agreed. I'm a US taxpayer and I'm super pissed that I didn't get to vote against shrinking our National Parks. I mean, I totally know that's not how these things work at all, but it still pisses me off. 

But the gov't didn't sell any land to some group of anonymous donors for a ridiculous price. I bet you would really would be pissed if that were the case. Let's see how this thing plays out.

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

But the gov't didn't sell any land to some group of anonymous donors for a ridiculous price. I bet you would really would be pissed if that were the case. Let's see how this thing plays out.

Oh sweet Jesus. Does it make it better that the government is prostituting protected lands to rapacious "known donors"? Again, I am SUPER pissed about this.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Oh sweet Jesus. Does it make it better that the government is prostituting protected lands to rapacious "known donors"? Again, I am SUPER pissed about this.

Guess you are talking about Alaska...where the protected land is about as big as the typical US state and space being released for development is maybe the size of the city of Auburn....no impact whatsoever.     Same in western US........where you an drive for three or four hours in several different states and see nothing but sage brush or grass.....and now windmills of course. ...and of course nobody is complaining about that.   Nobody is eating up or giving away all that federal land.    Need to save your anger for something more worthwhile.

[McLoofus 35,182]

32 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Guess you are talking about Alaska...where the protected land is about as big as the typical US state and space being released for development is maybe the size of the city of Auburn....no impact whatsoever.     Same in western US........where you an drive for three or four hours in several different states and see nothing but sage brush or grass.....and now windmills of course. ...and of course nobody is complaining about that.   Nobody is eating up or giving away all that federal land.    Need to save your anger for something more worthwhile.

Need to save your condescension for someone who's earned it.

You've clearly never been to Grand Staircase-Escalante. I can't say that I've been to Bear Ears or whatever it's called. That one sounds fairly innocuous but in Grand Staircase there's a chance of them turning a veritable natural wonder into a strip mine. That one is not about relinquishing federal coal. It is about opening the doors for dirty energy further exploiting vulnerable habitat. 

No, nobody is complaining about non-invasive clean energy that merely cheapens the view of some prairies. 

As for Alaska, there's no telling how damage will be done in an area merely the size of Auburn or how much it matters, but where's all that awesome energy going to go? Are they going to magically teleport it to the gas-starved lower 48?

Goodness knows we're just barely getting by even though we're already doing all we can to conserve fuel. Thank goodness Alaska can save us before we have to start feeding on the dead.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

As for Alaska, there's no telling how damage will be done in an area merely the size of Auburn or how much it matters, but where's all that awesome energy going to go? Are they going to magically teleport it to the gas-starved lower 48?

Let's just consider that the market place will decide.....since it's unlikely that anyone would actually make an investment of that magnitude unless they thought they had a way to get it to a market and consumers who want to buy it.  And what is wrong with selling into the world market?  

Amazing isn't it that 20  or 30 years ago folks were talking about running out of gas and oil...and that we were at the mercy of countries all over the world who despise us....and now we have too much....which is a nice problem for our country.   

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

Let's just consider that the market place will decide.....since it's unlikely that anyone would actually make an investment of that magnitude unless they thought they had a way to get it to a market and consumers who want to buy it.  And what is wrong with selling into the world market?  

My point was that transporting oil necessitates a vast footprint, a great deal more expenditure of fuel and other resources, and more risk to the environment. 

Besides, it's idiotic to keep treating oil as though it's an inexhaustible resource. Carter had a pretty good thing going in the late 70s as far as moving towards sustainable energy, but Reagan shut it down. Maybe we'll get there again. 

[AUDub 11,136]

17 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

My point was that transporting oil necessitates a vast footprint, a great deal more expenditure of fuel and other resources, and more risk to the environment. 

Besides, it's idiotic to keep treating oil as though it's an inexhaustible resource. Carter had a pretty good thing going in the late 70s as far as moving towards sustainable energy, but Reagan shut it down. Maybe we'll get there again. 

Wish we could have stayed the course on the metric system. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, Bigbens42 said:

Wish we could have stayed the course on the metric system. 

English measurement is soooooooooooooo dumb.

[AU64 10,122]

15 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Carter had a pretty good thing going in the late 70s as far as moving towards sustainable energy

You must have not been around in the Carter years....or perhaps forgot what it was like sitting in lines waiting for gas....or watching out the window from an office building to see when a truck pulled up at a nearby gas station and being rationed for 5 gallons or something.   Nothing sustainable about that.   What Carter taught us was that we needed to be more energy independent and it's taken a long time to pretty well get there. 

This has noting to do with statues in Memphis of course ....but the sustainable energy that has been pretty near shut down is nuclear power.

[AU64 10,122]

12 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Wish we could have stayed the course on the metric system. 

Yep...my company spent a fortune going metric back in the 1980s.....had all kinds of campaigns, changed packaging and yet, customers demanded that we also use the English dimensions and weights so it turned out to be a waste of money.      What's fun is to be in England where they use both systems.....and a few other measures unique to England. 

 

[AUDub 11,136]

4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

English measurement is soooooooooooooo dumb.

Yep. A base 10 system would be great for the kids. Easier to use and calculate, and early confidence in math is everything.

Imperial is awful, especially for scaling. A mile is 1,760 yards, a yard is 3 feet, a foot is 12 inches. These numbers are clunky and difficult to convert and would have an adverse effect on young children picking them up from the world around them. Metric is far easier to learn and implement at a young age, and a solid foundation and early confidence are everything in math. 

Science and healthcare have long since abandoned that clunky holdover from a bygone era. Time for the rest of us to follow suit.

[AU64 10,122]

So....how many meters tall were those statues and how many Kgs did they weigh?  ...just a question to get us  back on topic...

[McLoofus 35,182]

18 minutes ago, AU64 said:

What Carter taught us was that we needed to be more energy independent 

That this is your takeaway from that is what's wrong with damned near everything. 

Of course, I'm not sure that you fully believe it. Why say "energy" when you're talking specifically about oil?

[AU64 10,122]

33 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

That this is your takeaway from that is what's wrong with damned near everything. 

Of course, I'm not sure that you fully believe it. Why say "energy" when you're talking specifically about oil?

nope, not just oil....but carbon based fuels are still the primary source of energy in the world ....and likely always will be...especially for generating electricity.   

I have been an advocate for nuclear power for a long time but it's about been regulated out of economic viability...and I can't imagine another dam being approved for hydroelectric purposes. .  

Renewables are barely 10% and seem to be regional as far as economic viability is concerned.   Not a lot of electricity generated in the high population areas of the northeast from anything but carbon based fuels.

Keep building wind mills and solar panels.....no objections from me....but advocates need to be realistic about the potential and not strangle our economy with regulations that drive up costs and hurt the lower economic classes of our population. 

So how many meters tall were those statues and how much energy did it take to remove them?  

[McLoofus 35,182]

24 minutes ago, AU64 said:

nope, not just oil....but carbon based fuels are still the primary source of energy in the world ....and likely always will be...

Well, until they run out or until the planet becomes too hot to sustain life.

30 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I have been an advocate for nuclear power for a long time but it's about been regulated out of economic viability

I wonder why.

30 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Renewables are barely 10% and seem to be regional as far as economic viability is concerned.

Which is exactly what Carter was trying to change.

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

7 hours ago, McLoofus said:

 

Which is exactly what Carter was trying to change.

 

 

His brother Billy